Combier v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Combier v. City of New York

96 A.D.3d 505, 946 N.Y.S.2d 159

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 12, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 96 A.D.3d 505 (Combier v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Combier v. City of New York, 96 A.D.3d 505, 946 N.Y.S.2d 159 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered April 28, 2011, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained when plaintiff tripped and fell over fencing surrounding a tree well on the sidewalk abutting a building owned by defendant/third-party plaintiff El Kam Realty Co. (El Kam), granted El Kam’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

El Kam established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. El Kam submitted evidence showing that it did not install, maintain, control or repair the fencing around the tree well which allegedly caused plaintiff’s fall (see Vucetovic v Epsom Downs, Inc., 10 NY3d 517, 521 [2008]). In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Although plaintiff argued that El-Kam contracted to have third-party defendant perform work to improve the subject tree well, plaintiff made no showing that El-Kam assumed any control over that work (see Fernandez v 707, Inc., 85 AD3d 539 [2011]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Saxe, J.P., Catterson, Acosta, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered April 28, 2011, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained when plaintiff tripped and fell over fencing surrounding a tree well on the sidewalk abutting a building owned by defendant/third-party plaintiff El Kam Realty Co. (El Kam), granted El Kam’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

El Kam established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. El Kam submitted evidence showing that it did not install, maintain, control or repair the fencing around the tree well which allegedly caused plaintiff’s fall (see Vucetovic v Epsom Downs, Inc., 10 NY3d 517, 521 [2008]). In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Although plaintiff argued that El-Kam contracted to have third-party defendant perform work to improve the subject tree well, plaintiff made no showing that El-Kam assumed any control over that work (see Fernandez v 707, Inc., 85 AD3d 539 [2011]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Saxe, J.P., Catterson, Acosta, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 A.D.3d 505, 946 N.Y.S.2d 159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/combier-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack